Tell The Truth: This Is A Woman's World...

July 26, 2008

The question of whether Brideshead Revistedis better now or in the fondly remembered 1981 TV version
is the wrong question, as it turns out. Perhaps the film's best recommendation is that, approached fairly, it renders the comparisons moot. And perhaps that, in itself is proof of its success.

If only things were quite so simple.

Brideshead Revisted is an impressive, lavish attempt to retell a familiar story... and yet, ultimately, the questions of its remoteness, and its relentless moralism are what really complicate the assessment of this film's appeal. If the piece makes you think... does it matter that the thoughts are often quite negative?

All I can say is: me, too. I was stunned to hear that Carlin's dead, and the usual "what a great guy" or even "what a funny guy" seems beside the point. Carlin was too alive, too present, really, to deserve reverie. He'd have said "Fuck you, cocksucker" (using two of the seven), and ignored it.

I'm sort of fascinated that what we celebrate in Carlin really happened in the last 10, maybe 20 years. He was an old comic, from an old tradition, and like many of them, he got funnier, and feistier, with age. I don't even know what he was like in his actual youth; in the seventies, when he was in his forties, he was really sort of a counterculture holdover; but suddenly, in the eighties and beyond, he came into his own, and was really completely unstoppable.

In that hazy way, we will remember for those moments of speaking truth to power, and forget that his best humor was "old crank" humor maybe amped up a notch or two: if it was official, or established, or serious, or had some beaurocracy attached to it, Carlin hated it. He hated that we had to be polite, or perhaps more accurately, that we pretended that we had to be polite. As a result, though, he probably gave license to a sort of inner asshol-ishness that's not necessarily an improvement. Though I enjoyed his various specials... I usually got a little weary as they wore on.

But oh, when he was on! When it was seven dirty words or other hot topics, and he killed. Or, as the grizzled anchor of "The Aristocrats", the brilliant, savage documentary about one of the dirtiest jokes ever, he was soft spoken yet brilliant. We won't have to miss him (there's so much video)... but oh, what a shame that someday... we'll have to explain him.

There's been a growing bit of this, I've noticed, and it's a fairly traditional notion for Democrats: we don't just appreciate success, we practically worship it. Indeed, I've long thought that the "secular religion" charge that conservatives make about liberals finds some truth in the way we laud our political heroes. We speak of our electoral choices in terms of "like" or "love"; we adopt the church-like rhetoric of speakers like Dr. King to talk about the most mundane political issues.

May 15, 2008

Indeed, when I first heard it on the car radio this afternoon, I didn't entirely comprehend the enormity of it: we now have two states where gays and lesbians will be able to get marriage licenses (and, more cynically... divorces).

For a long time I was very ambivalent about gay marriage; I am old school in my rad fag tendencies, and the "sexual outlaw" aspect of the gay rights movement was something deeply meaningful to me (as a philosophy, oddly, and not a personal manifesto; I have the sexual history of an uptight protestant... because I am one). I believe, still, that out loud and proud gay activism should challenge every aspect of the heteronormative pressures our society puts forth, including the notions of marriage, fidelity and monogamy that are drilled into us day after day (just ask Vito Fossella. Or Elliott Spitzer.)

Still, that was before, as I've mentioned previously, going to my first gay wedding, where I took pictures for my very good friends, and brought them a lovely Smythson guest sign-in book (again: uptight, and protestant. How many times must I tell you?). Just like a real wedding. The ceremony, on Martha's Vineyard, in a three day affair, was lovely. Just like a real wedding.

Because it was.

Ultimately, as Red points out, there's a lot of political reasons to be impressed today. But this is personal. This is what Loving vs. Virginia means to me, and to my family. This is, as Mildred Loving said, about love, and families, and the simple, human desire to spend your life with the person you love. And so... if it makes me a little less rad, I'll admit: this marriage thing is pretty cool. And necessary. And I, too, am thrilled to see California move into the modern age.

But remember... it means we can get married. It doesn't mean we have to. :) Because I do... still... want to be one with the freaks, weirdos, and outsiders.

April 21, 2008

I'm not one to write a lot about The Pope; I'm not Catholic, and I've lived in three northeastern Catholic strongholds enough to know that there's a culture I will never completely get.

Still, I've lived now, through some four Popes (Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, Benedict XVI), and I'm beginning to get some things. Though I was not necessarily a fan of JPII, like many I think he put a calm, loving face to Catholicism, even if the reality of the Church's practices and policies differed somewhat. I think a lot of people don't like to see the church for what it is so much as what it could be - and what it is, really, is a naturally conservative organization which resists change... and actively tries to thwart it.

Even so, I was surprised when Cardinal Ratzinger was selected as the new Pope. His role as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (I love the wording in stuff like this) seemed too political, too strong and controlling, to suggest him as a follow-up to John Paul II, or as someone who would deal sensitively with some of the issues that need to be dealt with, like the Priest sex abuse scandals.

April 11, 2008

Longtime readers know that I've tried to maintain a certain level of balance in writing about the Presidential campaign; while I've been, and remain a strong supporter of Hillary Clinton, I have tried to respect that there's an argument to be made for Barack Obama, one that I may have to accept come the fall. I have also tried not to be a single issue voter about this (I'm Every Voter, It's All In Meeee....); but as I've said before, when it comes to Barack Obama and gay issues, it seems impossible for me not to become single issue, and rabidly partisan.

Let's be clear: Obama's interview with The Advocate was a virtual necessity: after snubbing The Philadelphia Gay News as the umpteenth local gay paper he's ignored in state after state, and PGN embarrassing him with a blank page where an interview would have been, his silence on gay issues was becoming deafening. Even his most ardent gay supporters had gotten to the point of imploring him to realize that his silence was damaging what has been, at best, a challenging appeal to gay voters.

Still, what low expectations I have in these things (you start your gay life at the height of the AIDS epidemic, as a rad fag, and you learn not to have high hopes, even with your political heroes), were almost completely dashed with this interview. My mind, still, reels at the things Obama says, and the cavalier way he assumes that gay people have to take him as he is, and not expect better. And frankly, if that's going to be his stance... I know I have to wonder just what I'm waiting around for, anyway.

March 23, 2008

I have a long post that's almost ready to go... but on this Easter Sunday, I actually have to serve coffee to churchgoers for a while... so more this afternoon. Thanks be to God. In the meantime, I recommend reading Joe Klein (i know... Joe Klein!), with some sensible suggestions on how the Cointon campaign can - and I think, should - refocus their campaign messages. Share and Enjoy. :)

And Happy Easter... which Stephen Suh does as much as anyone can to make an up holiday. Personally, I think the New Testament could use a PR rewrite. But that's me.

March 15, 2008

It's been, for years, a standard operating procedure - release bad news on Friday at 5, where it will barely make the evening news, and then get buried in the weekend paper. Come Monday, you can start fresh. The weekend, in theory, is your friend.

Let's just say... I doubt it. What complicates the modern approach is that while some things stop on the weekend others go on - the 24 hour news cycle is also 7 and 365, and the weekend will be full of more "analysis" and discussion of Wright, Obama, and paring of various statements. That will give Wright's critics ample opportunity to renew objections and say that Obama has not gone far enough.

Moreover, and I've been meaning to note this for a while, there's a weird split between left and right blogs; many lefty blogs go silent on the weekends. My biggest example is the contrast between National Review's The Corner and TAPPED at The American Prospect; while The Corner burbles merrily on over the weekend, Tapped packs up and goes home Friday at about 5. So to do the new "group blogs" on many major news sites (SwampLand at Time Magazine, for instance); Ezra Klein used to take weekends off, and though he doesn't so much now, his posting is still light, as it is with many bloggers (even Cogitamus, the collection of former "weekend bloggers" at Ezra's... seems to take weekends off). Most of us do, after all, have lives... and solo blogging makes it a necessity to stand down, at some point.

March 14, 2008

I'm of two minds about this - as with Geraldine Ferraro, I don't really want to discuss Jeremiah Wright, the pastor of Obama's church. On the other hand, as I pointed out, not talking doesn't help either.

In case you haven't seen it yet - and I get the impression this story has just exploded over the cable newsers - there's footage of Jeremiah Wright from just after the New Hampshire primary, offering some very charged, sure to be controversial words on his experiences, his congregation's experiences, and the black experience in America, all in service of making a case for Barack Obama, from the pulpit. (As with Olbermann, I can't see any reason to put the video here, you can see it over at the Obsidian Wings link above; it's not something I really want as a reminder.)

Barack Obama has never had to worry about being raped. He has never had
to worry when his period was late. It was never suggested to him in
school that he shouldn't aspire to more than staying home and raising a
family.

If Barack
Obama's daughters are rambunctious or out-of-control at an event, he
won't be blamed for it; that will fall to his wife. If he shows
emotion, he won't be assailed for being too "soft." Hillary Clinton, to
quote Wright, "ain't never been called a nigger." But Barack Obama
ain't never been called a bitch. Or a slut. Or a whore.

I am
truly frustrated with both sides in this struggle for the Democratic
party's nomination. I should not be surprised, of course; we have the
first viable female candidate and the first viable person of color
running against each other. And while it would be nice if everything
was positive and happy and upbeat, sadly we seem bent on playing the
more-oppressed-than-thou game, where Geraldine Ferraro comes out and
says Obama is where he is because he's an African-American, and where
Wright forgets that Clinton may not have had to overcome racism, but
she's surely had to overcome sexism.

I think a lot of us are right there with Jeff. And that's something I talked about with Ferraro. I think there's also the question of "religious adviser" that bears examining, as Klein, Sullivan and Hilzoy mention. I also think that what's missing in all of this is that we're looking at ... a problem. Not a solution.